1 / 20

Presentation 10:

Presentation 10:. Designing for Mobility. Agenda. Mobility defined The ”need for mobility” Mobility usability concerns Guidelines for mobile devices Anything, Anytime, Anywhere The ”Martini solution” Web of Technology Implicit HCI Programming for Mobility. Mobility Defined.

zenia-goodwin
Download Presentation

Presentation 10:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presentation 10: Designing for Mobility

  2. Agenda • Mobility defined • The ”need for mobility” • Mobility usability concerns • Guidelines for mobile devices • Anything, Anytime, Anywhere • The ”Martini solution” • Web of Technology • Implicit HCI • Programming for Mobility

  3. Mobility Defined • Belotti og Bly (1996) • ”Local and long-distance mobility”. • Local: nurses & doctors at hospital ward • Long-distance: sales- & repairmen • Kristoffersen & Ljungberg (1999) • Wandering: near “local” • Travelling: near “long-distance” – on the road • Visiting: “long-distance” at customer (more space) Bellotti, V. & Bly, S. (1996): Walking away from the desktop computer: Distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In K. Ehrlich and C. Schmandt, editors, Proceedings of the ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported CooperativeWork. ACM, ACM Press Kristoffersen, S. and Ljungberg, F. (1999): Mobile Use of IT. In proceedings of the 19th information systems research seminar in Scandinavia, edited by Käkölä, Jyväskylä, Finland.

  4. The ”need for mobility” Not so nice BUT available from the couch Nice – but NOT available from the couch Which do you choose?

  5. Of course we want it • We would love to check the TV-guide • On the bus • In the couch at home • In the office • Even on the toilet • We would like to be able to do a lot of things … • Check emails • Check the weather • Check the status of the feeding machine

  6. Mobility usability concerns • Several issues • Poor Interaction Device support: • Small output devices (screens) • Some limited to text • Some monochrome • Minimal input devices • Limited CPU resources • Limited battery power • Limited bandwidth • Price of network access

  7. Design Guidelines for Mobile Devices • Several Design Guidelines (Nokia 2004) • Nokia Produces several high quality • Ex: Series 60 phones Usability Guidelines • Example: 4.1 Navigation Nokia. (2004): Series 60 Developer Platform 2.0: Usability Guidelines For Enterprise Applications http://www.forum.nokia.com/main/1,6566,21,00.html?fsrParam=1-3-/main/1,6566,21_10,00.html&fileID=5828, 5. oktober 2004

  8. Design Guidelines for Mobile Devices • Guidelines from (Nokia 2004) • Navigation • Basic Interaction Style, Main Menu • Options Menu, Scrolling • Shortcuts, … • Text Entry (Entering Information) • Consider the possibilities • Make text entry easy • Respect the users work • Information Presentation • Chunking information • Text, Graphics, Colors, Sounds, Errors, … • Connectivity with a Server • Handling connections, Syncronizing See also Scott Weiss’ book on Handheld Usability, Wiley, 2002

  9. Guidelines are ”not enough” • As (Nokia 2004) states • One need to: • ”Know the user and context of use” (p. 8) • ”Test with real users and often” (p. 8) • ”Choose simlicity” (p. 8) • Use ”rapid prototyping” with paper prototypes (p. 11) • BUT still – there are other dangers to consider

  10. The ”Martini solution” • Anything, Anytime, Anywhere • Lets take WWW and make it mobile • The result: WAP • Ramsay & Nielsen (2000): • WAP Usability. Dejá Vu: 1994 All over Again • WAP failed miserably due to a lack of understanding of the special usability issues concerning mobility • WAP was designed for mobility – a paradox • The content was not – and marketing lied Ramsay, M. & Nielsen, J. (2000): WAP Usability. Deja Vu: 1994 All Over Again. Special Report of the Norman Nielsen Group

  11. Déjà Vu I • “The usability of current WAP services is severely reduced because of a misguided use of design principles from previous media, especially principles of Web design. This situation is exactly equivalent to Web design problems in 1994, when many sites contained “brochureware” that followed design principles that worked great in print (say, big images) but didn’t work in an interactive medium … example of a WAP design from Excite that uses four screens to present two screens’ worth of material. Such lavish design may work well on the Web if users have a big-screen PC, but on a smallscreen device, designers must boil each service down to its essence and show much less information.” (Ramsay & Nielsen 2000, p. 4).

  12. Dejá Vu II • “Users also seemed unable to quite get over the fact that WAP is not the Internet made portable. Whether it was ever meant to be that is open to question. It is tempting to lay much of the blame for this misconception at the door of the marketing departments who want to exploit mobile telephony. Nevertheless, there was, at the same time, a clear demand from users for a portable version of at least some of the Internet. So what does this mean for WAP? …” (Ramsay & Nielsen 2000, p. 68)

  13. Dejá Vu III • “… on the one side, the networks and content providers offered long lists of sites and services providing pretty much everything a WAP user might want. But to users, this was a recipe for disaster. The long menus required thumb-numbing scrolls. Categories in themselves were a good start, but once the user clicked through, the guiding role of the screen was often abandoned. This left users with a bewildering array of sites that frequently were not quite, if at all, what they wanted. The result? A mildly irritated user slowly and surely becomes increasingly more fractious and disenchanted with the system as a whole…“ (Ramsay & Nilsen 2000, p. 69)

  14. What does work • Do NOT try to convert PC solutions 1:1 • Make specialized versions • Introduce only the needed elements of the “overall information space” (Nielsen & Søndergaard 2000) • Support “intelligent use” • Implict HCI (Contextual Awareness) • Web of Technologies (Nielsen & Søndergaard 2000) Nielsen, C. and Søndergaard, A. (2000): Designing for mobility: an integration approach supporting multiple technologies. In Proceedings of the 1stNordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

  15. Web of Technologies - existing While on the couch – much of it While at the PC – all of the overall information space While in the bus, on the toilet, at the office – only part of it

  16. Web of Technologies - symbiotic While at the office – access all of the overall information space – plan ahead In the supermarket – easy access through Symbiotic Web

  17. Web of Technologies

  18. Implicit HCI - Context Awareness (Mann 1994, 1996 & 1997) Mann, S. (1994): "Mediated Reality". TR 260, M.I.T. Media Lab Perceptual Computing Section, Cambridge, Ma.

  19. RFID Positioning BlueTooth GPS WLAN IR Pervasive Computing Ubiquitous Computing Implicit HCI - Context Awareness

  20. Programming Mobility • WAP: WML / XHTML / cHTML • Most cell phones support WML today (many XHTML) • Java: J2ME MIDP CLDC (v. 1.0 & 2.0) • Most cell phones support v. 1.0 • Symbian C++ • Some symbian phones appearing • Micrsoft SmartPhones (Windows CE) • .NET Framework, eMbedded C++ / VB

More Related